You're on crack cocaine if you think I support any war, you reading-impaired drug addled dumbass.

You and the other fair-weather pacifists rolled up your war protest banners and hid them under your bed when Obama become President. After that fine day, those wars were just fine with you, and all the new ones being proposed - Syria, Iran - fine as well.

You and the other "Look at me, I'm a war protester!" trendy f*cking posers are a disgrace.

ISO15693:For millenia, soldiers have been haunted like this - but also for millenia, the threat of eternal consequences after death brought by cultural religious beliefs was enough to keep suicide down.

Now, though, the philosophy/religion of atheism is much more common, logically removing this concern for many, and this is simply a predictable result (regardless of any right or wrongness.)

There are those that refer to religion as a crutch, or simple comfort for the weak; an "opiate of the masses" etc.

Well good job, atheists. People like this no longer have that comfort.

I'd hardly call the threat of eternal punishment a "comfort". If the threat of never ending torture is the only thing keeping you on this mortal coil, I feel more sorry for you than I do for those who choose to end their lives.

omeganuepsilon:Personally, I think our government is beyond all repair. We call it a democracy and we pretend to have two parties, but we really don't have either, not when you get down to it. We have a side show three ring circus.

Western governments are just an extension of the stock exchange. It's institutionalized graft, but as long as most people have a 60" TV, they won't complain.

ladyfortuna:OgreMagi: He could, with a single command, put a stop to the abuse of our soldiers by "the system".

Can I please get directions to the dream world you live in?

It's not that simple when you're dealing with the middle management that is military senior NCOs and a-hole officers. And I say this from experience and actually liking *some* of the ones I worked for.

I don't expect an order from the Commander In Chief to magically fix things. But that kind of order in place would make it damn clear how things are supposed to be handled and would give protection to the people trying to help soldiers and who try to keep REMF from railroading "broken" soldiers out with bad discharge papers.

Basically, I expect the farking president to at least TRY to do something.

Lucinda Matlockby Edgar Lee MastersI went to the dances at Chandlerville,And played snap-out at Winchester.One time we changed partners,Driving home in the moonlight of middle June,And then I found Davis.We were married and lived together for seventy years,Enjoying, working, raising the twelve children,Eight of whom we lostEre I had reached the age of sixty.I spun, I wove, I kept the house, I nursed the sick,I made the garden, and for holidayRambled over the fields where sang the larks,And by Spoon River gathering many a shell,And many a flower and medicinal weed--Shouting to the wooded hills, singing to the green valleys.At ninety-six I had lived enough, that is all,And passed to a sweet repose.What is this I hear of sorrow and weariness,Anger, discontent and drooping hopes?Degenerate sons and daughters,Life is too strong for you--It takes life to love Life.

I'd normally spew partisan anger at such things, but the simple fact is that this horror is beyond party, beyond politics, beyond policy.

The worst part is that, in a week, most of us won't remember his name. He's just one of 22 today, and in a week, well, we'll have lost 153 more of them. We'll shrug our shoulders, remembering that it doesn't directly affect us, and go back to partisan bickering and "first world problems." We've been told, for the last decade now, that being angry about how our government has suddenly shifted from freedom to fascism is "un-American." Heck, we've ridiculed protestors who tried to stand up and push back against such things. Our own citizens hide in other countries because they revealed just a small fraction of what our government now considers routine and acceptable. Our own warfighters kill themselves because they can't deal with the mental and physical anguish earned by their service.

So, what would be the point of spewing partisan anger? It's just rearranging yet another deck chair on the Titanic.

First of all, great memory. Secondly, you will always lose with this simple yes or no question: did Saddam fully and immediately comply?

The answer is no, of course. Removing hindsight from the equation, knowing what we knew then, we could not allow that situation to continue. In a post-9/11 world, we could not allow an enemy that we already defeated to not account for the weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed and provided proof of their destruction. We gave him several opportunities and he chose poorly each time. SADDAM did that. And now we're seeing his WMDs at work in Syria, as many suspected all along. Speaking of vindication.

The true answer, of course, is that it didn't matter. Bush/Cheney went to war because they wanted to pick a fight, and lawyering together some UN regulations that everyone else had forgotten about (because they were fundamentally irrelevent) was their chosen method. Anything to get your wargasm on, eh?

Meanwhile, we liberals were, of course, completely vindicated because it turned out that Saddam had long ago scrapped all his WMD weapons and programs. Destroyed and gone.

And of course, you cannot provide even a scrap of evidence that any of Iraq's WMDs have ever been in Syria. You're still failing the generational test.

STRYPERSWINE:Corn_Fed: STRYPERSWINE: whatshisname: STRYPERSWINE: Sucks that Saddam Hussein started a war and then refused to comply with the cease-fire after losing.

Getting this in before people start blaming Bush for Saddam's actions and inactions.

You must be drunk

I just remember what happened. It wasn't that long ago.

So do I. I remember your relentless war hawkishness. I'm also aware that only Bush and his fellow Repugs like you were concerned about a few irrelevent UN regulations dating from 1991 that no intelligent person would think would be worth dying for, let alone 4,000 Americans dying for (not to mention $2 billion down the drain).

Was the war worth your rabid hawkishness? Good return on investment? If you had to do it all over again, would you still rabidly demand ground invasion, like you did in 2003?

Because given that we (those of us who debated you in 2002 and 2003 before the invasion) were all telling you that 93% of Saddam's WMD's had been accounted for, any remaining would be well past their shelf-life, I can certainly say that I am 100% vindicated by the disgustingly useless and worthless war that followed, and war hawks like you failed the moral test of a generation. You continue to have the sticky blood of 4,000 Americans on your hands.

First of all, great memory. Secondly, you will always lose with this simple yes or no question: did Saddam fully and immediately comply?

The answer is no, of course. Removing hindsight from the equation, knowing what we knew then, we could not allow that situation to continue. In a post-9/11 world, we could not allow an enemy that we already defeated to not account for the weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed and provided proof of their destruction. We gave him several opportunities and he chose poorly each time. SADDAM did that. And now we're seeing his WMDs at work in Syria, as many suspected all along. Speaking of vindication.

WASHINGTON, DC-President Bush expressed frustration and anger Monday over a U.N. report stating that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein is now fully complying with weapons inspections. "Enough is enough," a determined Bush told reporters. "We are not fooled by Saddam's devious attempts to sway world opinion by doing everything the U.N. asked him to do. We will not be intimidated into backing down and, if we have any say in the matter, neither will Saddam." Bush added that any further Iraqi attempt to meet the demands of the U.N. or U.S. will be regarded as "an act of war."

It's funny because it's true. And stop with the false dichotomy. It isn't as though our choice was limited to invade or do nothing. Anyone who remembers that time can also remember that it was pretty clear that the 9/11 attack was being seized on to do something that had been planned on long in advance. If not for that terrorist attack, there is no way the American people could have been persuaded to invade Iraq.

MaliFinn:Heavily prepped my ass. We're being lightly advised, at best. At this rate our grandchildren will still be considering whether to taunt Syria a second time.

Well, that's just like, your opinion man. I know I'm seeing a flood of MSM articles on the Glorious Liberation of Syria every day now. We're seeing policy changes out of the Executive, and Congress seems completely on board.

OgreMagi:ladyfortuna: OgreMagi: He could, with a single command, put a stop to the abuse of our soldiers by "the system".

Can I please get directions to the dream world you live in?

It's not that simple when you're dealing with the middle management that is military senior NCOs and a-hole officers. And I say this from experience and actually liking *some* of the ones I worked for.

I don't expect an order from the Commander In Chief to magically fix things. But that kind of order in place would make it damn clear how things are supposed to be handled and would give protection to the people trying to help soldiers and who try to keep REMF from railroading "broken" soldiers out with bad discharge papers.

Basically, I expect the farking president to at least TRY to do something.

The way social policies work in the military is that CIC or top brass give an order, it gets disseminated down the line, and then half or more of the people in charge ignore it because they either don't believe/agree that what it's addressing is a problem, or it costs too much, or etc etc etc. Why do you think all that legislation about taking commanders out of the sexual assault report-handling is doing so poorly? Because it's another thing that they don't want to deal with so they'll water it down until it has no teeth left, and then they sweep it under the rug.

I had exactly two NCOICs and one UA who cared enough to address things that were wrong and at least try to correct them (not just my issues, many other people in the unit), and even they were kind of selective about who they helped out if they didn't think something was a big deal.

As a side note, Joint Base Lewis-McChord is in my relative neck of the woods, and I have heard enough over the years from friends & acquaintances to spend the rest of my days angry. In the last few years, JBLM comes up far too often when you look for war crimes and atrocities committed by our folks, and even with the little that comes out of there, it's appalling. His situation isn't news here. He was just a bit more eloquent in expressing himself.

whatshisname:omeganuepsilon: Personally, I think our government is beyond all repair. We call it a democracy and we pretend to have two parties, but we really don't have either, not when you get down to it. We have a side show three ring circus.

Western governments are just an extension of the stock exchange. It's institutionalized graft, but as long as most people have a 60" TV, they won't complain.

Apathy. That explains about half the problem. Ignorance accounts for the rest. I cant imagine an agreeable to solution to the problem.

Corn_Fed:Cyno01: I know mental health diagnoses werent what they are now (but otoh neither was mental health care...), but how does this compare to soldiers returning from WWII? I know Iraq/Afghanistan deployment has been around 2 million soldiers total, and WWII was closer to 15, was there a comparable rate of suicide among those returning soldiers and its just never ever talked about at all? I know suicide was high among returning Vietnam Vets, but not like today where more soldiers have killed themselves than died in combat. What the hell has changed?

Not sure, but has close combat gotten more intense, or more gruesome with technology?

I think part of it is now that medical technology has improved over time. Meaning people are surviving injuries now that would have killed them in another era. Part of what we're seeing more of now might come from there being more of it to see.

Corn_Fed:Cyno01: I know mental health diagnoses werent what they are now (but otoh neither was mental health care...), but how does this compare to soldiers returning from WWII? I know Iraq/Afghanistan deployment has been around 2 million soldiers total, and WWII was closer to 15, was there a comparable rate of suicide among those returning soldiers and its just never ever talked about at all? I know suicide was high among returning Vietnam Vets, but not like today where more soldiers have killed themselves than died in combat. What the hell has changed?

Not sure, but has close combat gotten more intense, or more gruesome with technology?

Repo Man:STRYPERSWINE: Corn_Fed: STRYPERSWINE: whatshisname: STRYPERSWINE: Sucks that Saddam Hussein started a war and then refused to comply with the cease-fire after losing.

Getting this in before people start blaming Bush for Saddam's actions and inactions.

You must be drunk

I just remember what happened. It wasn't that long ago.

So do I. I remember your relentless war hawkishness. I'm also aware that only Bush and his fellow Repugs like you were concerned about a few irrelevent UN regulations dating from 1991 that no intelligent person would think would be worth dying for, let alone 4,000 Americans dying for (not to mention $2 billion down the drain).

Was the war worth your rabid hawkishness? Good return on investment? If you had to do it all over again, would you still rabidly demand ground invasion, like you did in 2003?

Because given that we (those of us who debated you in 2002 and 2003 before the invasion) were all telling you that 93% of Saddam's WMD's had been accounted for, any remaining would be well past their shelf-life, I can certainly say that I am 100% vindicated by the disgustingly useless and worthless war that followed, and war hawks like you failed the moral test of a generation. You continue to have the sticky blood of 4,000 Americans on your hands.

First of all, great memory. Secondly, you will always lose with this simple yes or no question: did Saddam fully and immediately comply?

The answer is no, of course. Removing hindsight from the equation, knowing what we knew then, we could not allow that situation to continue. In a post-9/11 world, we could not allow an enemy that we already defeated to not account for the weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed and provided proof of their destruction. We gave him several opportunities and he chose poorly each time. SADDAM did that. And now we're seeing his WMDs at work in Syria, as many suspected all along. Speaking of vindication.

Saddam Enrages Bush With Full Compliance

WASHINGTO ...

By the end, it wasn't even satire. The UN Weapons Inspection team, headed by Hans Blix, WAS in Iraq, getting total, full and unfettered access to ALL requested sites. Finding nothing.

First of all, great memory. Secondly, you will always lose with this simple yes or no question: did Saddam fully and immediately comply?

The answer is no, of course. Removing hindsight from the equation, knowing what we knew then, we could not allow that situation to continue. In a post-9/11 world, we could not allow an enemy that we already defeated to not account for the weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed and provided proof of their destruction. We gave him several opportunities and he chose poorly each time. SADDAM did that. And now we're seeing his WMDs at work in Syria, as many suspected all along. Speaking of vindication.

The true answer, of course, is that it didn't matter. Bush/Cheney went to war because they wanted to pick a fight, and lawyering together some UN regulations that everyone else had forgotten about (because they were fundamentally irrelevent) was their chosen method. Anything to get your wargasm on, eh?

Meanwhile, we liberals were, of course, completely vindicated because it turned out that Saddam had long ago scrapped all his WMD weapons and programs. Destroyed and gone.

And of course, you cannot provide even a scrap of evidence that any of Iraq's WMDs have ever been in Syria. You're still failing the generational test.

And this is a perfect example of the problem..."we republicans/we liberals"....Bush's fault...Obama's still doing it...blah, blah, blah...

From this man's standpoint, it happened. He's the person that had to deal with the repercussions. Neither of you. You are to busy worrying about who to blame it on than what do we do help the people who actually experienced it.

OgreMagi:'ve been saying that for years. The people who run for president are hand picked. I doubt the real movers and shakers in Washington even care which party wins the election. It's all the same to them.

Years ago I swore to never again vote for a republican or a democrat. Since I don't see any difference between the two, it doesn't matter if "the other guy wins". There is no other guy.

Yeah, but what to do? It seems like the only possible way is a major culture change within an existing party - turn it inside out - rather than a born-to-lose 3rd party. It has happened several times in our history. The south used to be exclusively populated with Democrats (dixiecrats) until the party culture no longer suited them, and they built the 'moral majority' into the Republican party. The Tea Party was a hint of how that can happen again. OWS may have been another.

MurphyMurphy:You must not blame yourself. The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand. Then, the same government has turned around and abandoned me. They offer no help, and actively block the pursuit of gaining outside help via their corrupt agents at the DEA. Any blame rests with them.

I've been trying to get through to people about this shiat for some time now but no one wants to listen. I'm certainly not alone.

In fact, I think just a week ago I got lambasted by for pointing out I know men that have gone through this very thing and carry tortured souls because of it.

Look this HARD IN THE FARKING FACE. This is what the stars and stripes will be known for by future generations if we can't learn to be honest with ourselves and face the realities we are causing across the world while we silently lie to ourselves.

/I feel sorry for this man//I feel partly responsible too, we all should

You need to let it go.

Every war has atrocities. That's what war is. You don't get through a war without both sides committing horrific acts against each other. It flows from the first principle of war - to kill people.

That is why many, many people protested against the Iraq war. Aside from the lunatics, the free mumia dredlock douchebags, there were actually people who knew all this was going to happen. Who knew that atrocities would come, and suicide and death would come, because if you study war, that's what always comes.

Everyone knows that the "Stars and Stripes" commits atrocities just like every other army has committed atrocities, in the history of war. Thats what war is, an atrocity. It is a break down of every social norm and all the rules of civilization that keep ordinary life going. War is the death of children and innocents. It always has been, and it always will be.

People are lying to themsleves. But they always lie to themselves. Sgt Calley of the Vietnam war didn't admit what he had done for over 30 years. Thirty Years. Are you going to spend your life waiting for this sort of thing to happen? Lying about atrocities is as much a part of war as violence.

People have tortured souls. Well, that's what war does. It's not like you can have a war without having tortured souls.

In summation, I just don't think you can control other people. The only thing you can do is to try to stop a war before it starts. After it starts, you just have to ride it out to the logical conclusion. And that conclusion has always been, and always will be, suicides, tortured souls, shattered lives, atrocities, lies, coverups, and death. That's what war is. It's too late to stop it. We just have to wait a generation for it's damage to play out and be over.

Sure we can analyze it, write about it, bring the truth out, uncover hidden things. But you can't force people to think, or to notice, or to agree with you.

Corn_Fed:Repo Man: STRYPERSWINE: Corn_Fed: STRYPERSWINE: whatshisname: STRYPERSWINE: Sucks that Saddam Hussein started a war and then refused to comply with the cease-fire after losing.

Getting this in before people start blaming Bush for Saddam's actions and inactions.

You must be drunk

I just remember what happened. It wasn't that long ago.

So do I. I remember your relentless war hawkishness. I'm also aware that only Bush and his fellow Repugs like you were concerned about a few irrelevent UN regulations dating from 1991 that no intelligent person would think would be worth dying for, let alone 4,000 Americans dying for (not to mention $2 billion down the drain).

Was the war worth your rabid hawkishness? Good return on investment? If you had to do it all over again, would you still rabidly demand ground invasion, like you did in 2003?

Because given that we (those of us who debated you in 2002 and 2003 before the invasion) were all telling you that 93% of Saddam's WMD's had been accounted for, any remaining would be well past their shelf-life, I can certainly say that I am 100% vindicated by the disgustingly useless and worthless war that followed, and war hawks like you failed the moral test of a generation. You continue to have the sticky blood of 4,000 Americans on your hands.

First of all, great memory. Secondly, you will always lose with this simple yes or no question: did Saddam fully and immediately comply?

The answer is no, of course. Removing hindsight from the equation, knowing what we knew then, we could not allow that situation to continue. In a post-9/11 world, we could not allow an enemy that we already defeated to not account for the weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed and provided proof of their destruction. We gave him several opportunities and he chose poorly each time. SADDAM did that. And now we're seeing his WMDs at work in Syria, as many suspected all along. Speaking of vindication.

I think there are a lot of possible factors, barring those requiring tinfoil...here are three pretty big aspects that come to mind

A. Society is a lot more liberal now, and so is training(the mental side). It is a lot less harsh physically too of course, but that has an effect mentally too. In effect we get: Less strict minded recruits that are not trained to be anywhere near as disciplined. Kind of a double whammy.

B. the environment over there. It's the desert:1. Barren and boring enough to drive people crazy just because.2. Factor in heat that is enough to cause brain damage.3. Heat again. We can only acclimate so far from what we've evolved to. Eskimo's thrive up north, and people who've been in the desert for thousands of years seem to manage. But plop an average european down in the desert and he's going to have a constant struggle.

C. I'll return to our more modern liberal political climate.We simply don't support our troops like we used to. Hell, read this thread. People vilify people just for joining up, say that they're actually damaging our country. Now, soldiers are kind of kept out of the loop, you never want your troops thinking about why they're there, that's above their paygrade and can cause functional problems. But it does seep through, military papers more and more read like obvious propaganda so you know something is up....and of course, letters from home, care packages with newspapers and magazines chock full of demoralizing material...from our own people. The bit of packaged news and sparse internet they do get access to...all of it a resounding, "you are ignorant, you are stupid, you are to blame"

First of all, great memory. Secondly, you will always lose with this simple yes or no question: did Saddam fully and immediately comply?

The answer is no, of course. Removing hindsight from the equation, knowing what we knew then, we could not allow that situation to continue. In a post-9/11 world, we could not allow an enemy that we already defeated to not account for the weapons that he was supposed to have destroyed and provided proof of their destruction. We gave him several opportunities and he chose poorly each time. SADDAM did that. And now we're seeing his WMDs at work in Syria, as many suspected all along. Speaking of vindication.

The true answer, of course, is that it didn't matter. Bush/Cheney went to war because they wanted to pick a fight, and lawyering together some UN regulations that everyone else had forgotten about (because they were fundamentally irrelevent) was their chosen method. Anything to get your wargasm on, eh?

Meanwhile, we liberals were, of course, completely vindicated because it turned out that Saddam had long ago scrapped all his WMD weapons and programs. Destroyed and gone.

And of course, you cannot provide even a scrap of evidence that any of Iraq's WMDs have ever been in Syria. You're still failing the generational test.

And this is a perfect example of the problem..."we republicans/we liberals"....Bush's fault...Obama's still doing it...blah, blah, blah...

From this man's standpoint, it happened. He's the person that had to deal with the repercussions. Neither of you. You are to busy worrying about who to blame it on than what do we do help the people who actually experienced it.

I can't do anything for this man, or any of the others who will commit suicide in the days/weeks to come. It's already happened--their lives have been shattered because of the decision to go to war. These decisions have terrible consequences. Should we just ignore how it happened, especially when how it happened is so clear that it's staring us in the face? Ignoring it ensures it will happen again and again in the future.

WhoopAssWayne:My cousin signed up for the Army at the last possible age they will take you. Left a huge salary on the table and his wife and infant daughter. Ended up in OCS, got his butter bars (2nd Lt) and sent to Afghanistan then later Iraq. Multiple tours. He was not Infantry but some kind of logistics with trucking. No one knows what happened - he's not talking - but his convoy got hit with an IED and he ended up with a bronze star and purple heart. We know no details as he no longer communicates with any of us or his wife and kid. Something is bad wrong, and stories like this, they just hit home.

My cousin got blown out the turret on a hummer when they got hit by an IED. His backplate absorbed most of the impact when he landed on his back. He went back and pulled his buddies out. He was supposed to get the bronze star but they kept putting it off and putting it off. Eventually they basically told him the only way he would get it is if he reenlisted. He told them to fark off.

Corn_Fed:Cyno01: I know mental health diagnoses werent what they are now (but otoh neither was mental health care...), but how does this compare to soldiers returning from WWII? I know Iraq/Afghanistan deployment has been around 2 million soldiers total, and WWII was closer to 15, was there a comparable rate of suicide among those returning soldiers and its just never ever talked about at all? I know suicide was high among returning Vietnam Vets, but not like today where more soldiers have killed themselves than died in combat. What the hell has changed?

Not sure, but has close combat gotten more intense, or more gruesome with technology?

Doubt it, fewer bayonets, more long range ordinance and drone strikes? I mean its not like it sucks worse to see your buddy get blown apart by an insurgent IED than a nazi potato masher, but statistically, waaaaaay more soldiers in WWII saw their buddies get blown up, the casualties on our side for the current wars are minuscule compared to past conflicts. Quick figures;

WWII, 16 million US troops deployed, 291,557 combat deaths at a rate of 416 a day;Korea, 5.7mil deployed, 33,686 combat deaths, 45 a day;Vietnam, 2.7mil deployed, 47,424 combat deaths at 11 a day.Current wars? 2.5 million US troops deployed, 5,281 combat deaths at a rate of 1.57 a day.

Is it because its an all volunteer army now? Why does that make soldiers less able to deal? Is it something else?

Its just crazy to image how different things used to be, nowadays a soldier dies, he makes the front page of his hometown newspaper, in WWII we lost more men in 2 weeks than we have the entire war on terror.

WhoopAssWayne:OgreMagi: 've been saying that for years. The people who run for president are hand picked. I doubt the real movers and shakers in Washington even care which party wins the election. It's all the same to them.

Years ago I swore to never again vote for a republican or a democrat. Since I don't see any difference between the two, it doesn't matter if "the other guy wins". There is no other guy.

Yeah, but what to do? It seems like the only possible way is a major culture change within an existing party - turn it inside out - rather than a born-to-lose 3rd party. It has happened several times in our history. The south used to be exclusively populated with Democrats (dixiecrats) until the party culture no longer suited them, and they built the 'moral majority' into the Republican party. The Tea Party was a hint of how that can happen again. OWS may have been another.

I think a major cultural and party change is eminent. A lot of democrats are extremely upset with Obama. Too many broken promises. That could push a lot to other parties (probably the Green). It doesn't need to be enough votes to get a third party win. It just needs to be percentage that is significant enough to get people's attention.

Third party votes combined have come to about 1% of the vote in presidential elections. Get that to 5% or 10% and we might actually see some change, or at least a few promises kept.

Cyno01:I know mental health diagnoses werent what they are now (but otoh neither was mental health care...), but how does this compare to soldiers returning from WWII? I know Iraq/Afghanistan deployment has been around 2 million soldiers total, and WWII was closer to 15, was there a comparable rate of suicide among those returning soldiers and its just never ever talked about at all? I know suicide was high among returning Vietnam Vets, but not like today where more soldiers have killed themselves than died in combat. What the hell has changed?

The big change is our society and that we talk about it. The WW2 veterans had the same issues however the societal norm was to internalize and not talk about it, leading to the heavy smoking/heavy drinking that was the norm. Also the larger scale involvement of the population made it more easier to relate knowing that everyone is going through the similar stresses and aren't talking about it either.

Everyone thought that we would not make the same mistake that we did with the Vietnam veterans, many more organizations are in place to show support for the armed forces, you see more flags and yellow ribbons... but apparently that wasn't the problem.

Cyno01:I know mental health diagnoses werent what they are now (but otoh neither was mental health care...), but how does this compare to soldiers returning from WWII? I know Iraq/Afghanistan deployment has been around 2 million soldiers total, and WWII was closer to 15, was there a comparable rate of suicide among those returning soldiers and its just never ever talked about at all? I know suicide was high among returning Vietnam Vets, but not like today where more soldiers have killed themselves than died in combat. What the hell has changed?

My Uncle is pushing 90. While I sympathize with the soldier who wrote this letter, during the Battle of the Bulge my Uncle experienced 10x worse than anything any soldier sees today. He still wakes up in the middle of the night screaming. His buddies were no different. I just think this generation is much more fragile than his. In his time, people died at home, not in hospitals. Your meat didn't come in neatly wrapped plastic. People and horses were routinely killed by trains on public streets. Everything today is sterile and the unpleasantries of life are well hidden from view.

flamingboard:My cousin got blown out the turret on a hummer when they got hit by an IED. His backplate absorbed most of the impact when he landed on his back. He went back and pulled his buddies out. He was supposed to get the bronze star but they kept putting it off and putting it off. Eventually they basically told him the only way he would get it is if he reenlisted. He told them to fark off.

That's a raw deal. His actions speak for themselves and that is very much a bronze star type action. Holding that over his head for re-enlistment is bullsh*t.

error 303:Man, that sucks. I don't really know what to say. On the one hand we're really failing a lot of our soldiers who need us, but a part of me still feels that suicide is (99.999% of the time) not the answer. And I don't want to try to say that in a cheesy, after school special, "It gets better" sort of way or anything... it's just awful, awful awful for everyone involved.

Of course it isn't the answer but when it seems there is no other way out from the pain and misery it is understandable that it becomes the only answer available. We are failing our service members and it's a crime. Think about all the men and women who could of done more with their lives than be a participant in a needless war.

I am talking not only about Iraq but Afghanistan. 3000 plus civilians died during 9/11. The death count for service members who were in Iraq/Afghanistan alone not counting suicide is nearly double.

Then there are all the civilians killed. Though they don't matter as much as the deaths of our civilians because they're brown? Fark that shiat.

I think there are a lot of possible factors, barring those requiring tinfoil...here are three pretty big aspects that come to mind

A. Society is a lot more liberal now, and so is training(the mental side). It is a lot less harsh physically too of course, but that has an effect mentally too. In effect we get: Less strict minded recruits that are not trained to be anywhere near as disciplined. Kind of a double whammy.

B. the environment over there. It's the desert:1. Barren and boring enough to drive people crazy just because.2. Factor in heat that is enough to cause brain damage.3. Heat again. We can only acclimate so far from what we've evolved to. Eskimo's thrive up north, and people who've been in the desert for thousands of years seem to manage. But plop an average european down in the desert and he's going to have a constant struggle.

C. I'll return to our more modern liberal political climate.We simply don't support our troops like we used to. Hell, read this thread. People vilify people just for joining up, say that they're actually damaging our country. Now, soldiers are kind of kept out of the loop, you never want your troops thinking about why they're there, that's above their paygrade and can cause functional problems. But it does seep through, military papers more and more read like obvious propaganda so you know something is up....and of course, letters from home, care packages with newspapers and magazines chock full of demoralizing material...from our own people. The bit of packaged news and sparse internet they do get access to...all of it a resounding, "you are ignorant, you are stupid, you are to blame"

Uh, maybe a few trolls on the internet sure, but the general public? Nobodys spitting on troops returning from the middle east, go to a restaurant in uniform nowadays and you get 10 people offering to pay for your meal. The war in Iraq isnt any more just than Vietnam was, but holy shiat do people bend over backwards for vets nowadays compared to then. Back then everybody was happy to blame drafted soldiers, nowadays most folks seem to reserve blame for any unpleasantness for the leaders of our now volunteer army.

I can't do anything for this man, or any of the others who will commit suicide in the days/weeks to come. It's already happened--their lives have been shattered because of the decision to go to war. These decisions have terrible consequences. Should we just ignore how it happened, especially when how it happene ...

No, but getting into a pissing contest about which party started this particular one isn't figuring out how it happened. It's just one side trying to blame it on the other.

It goes far beyond political parties. But that's what everyone of these threads devolve into.